Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: BH-l: BH/LBH and purpose of discussion

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Peter Kirk"<peter_kirk AT sil.org>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: BH-l: BH/LBH and purpose of discussion
  • Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 11:59:34 -0500


Dear Cynthia,

Thank you for your posting. I make some comments below.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: BH-l: BH/LBH and purpose of discussion
Author: <cynthia AT oumail.openu.ac.il> at Internet
Date: 15/02/2000 15:42


Dear Peter, Paul and others who would rather discuss the historical aspects
of Biblical Hebrew,

The main problem you must take into account is that the arguments for BH/LBH
progression are circular and do not adequately tally with the phenomena
observable from epigraphic Hebrew sources throughout the first millenium.
1. Yes, the Hebrew of Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemia is different from that of
Samuel-Kings (conveniently termed "classical Hebrew"), and that this
divergent Biblical Hebrew has affinities with Mishnaic Hebrew, and anyone
wishing bibliography on this may apply to me offline. But does this
necessarily mean that the Hebrew of Sam-Kings is earlier, and that of Chron,
Ez-Neh is later? The argument is based...

PK: In part. Other parts of the argument are the affinities of LBH
with Mishnaic i.e. later Hebrew which you mention; and simply that the
difference has to be explained somehow, the most probable explanation
(for books which are probably all produced by elite circles in
Jerusalem) is a time gap, and that since Ezra-Nehemiah must be late
the best explanation is that Samuel-Kings is, as it claims to be,
earlier.

.. upon literary assumptions - a) that Sam-Kings is a pre-exilic
composition; b) that Chronicles is a rewriting of Sam-Kings. Both of these
assumptions have been hotly argued in recent scholarly discussion, and
again, apply to me offline for references...

PK: a) is the point under discussion here. Quite frankly (having
worked through the parallelisms between Samuel-Kings and Chronicles) I
find that serious questioning of b) incredible, though it could of
course be an over-simplification. But I have not seen literature
seriously arguing the contrary position.

.. Now, if Sam-Kings is a pre-exilic composition, then we should expect the
Hebrew of this work to accurately reflect the characteristics (other than
those of orthography which changed in transmission) of the inscriptional
Hebrew of the Iron Age. But this is not the case. For example, it is
frequently stated that Classical BH uses accusative pronouns alongside
accusative suffixes, while LBH has near exclusive use of accusative
suffixes. However, in this matter oddly enough, Iron Age inscriptional
Hebrew displays the usage considered characteristic of LBH, rather than the
alternation of suffixes with separate acc. pronouns in "classical" biblical
texts.

PK: You speak of "this matter". What about other matters? In such a
case one needs to look at the whole range of indicators, rather than
focusing on one which happens to fits one's presuppositions. Has there
been a detailed study of the whole range of indicators?

2. If the Hebrew of Chron., Ez.-Neh., which is conveniently termed LBH,
represents in fact a late development of biblical Hebrew, then how is it
that late biblical texts, like Esther, the MT addition to I Sam 17 and
others, are relatively free of LBH? How is it that a text as late as Ps. 151
is written in classical Hebrew devoid of elements of late morphology or
syntax?

PK: Here you are the one making literary and dating assumptions. I
accept that Esther is post-exilic of course and so must be deliberate
archaising as widely argued. But you are assuming a late date for
parts of 1 Sam 17 on the basis of certain assumptions about its
obviously complex textual history. I have never heard of a Hebrew text
of Psalm 151 - is this the same as the LXX Psalm 151? Or did you make
a slip with the numbering here? Then on what basis do you assume that
this psalm is late?

In light of these problems, there is good reason to doubt whether one is
justified in appealing to BH diachronics when attempting to date composition
of texts. How, then, to explain the differing linguistic characteristics of
biblical texts? Part of the answer might have to do with stylistics. Another
factor might be sociolects adopted by writers in order to indentify
themselves with different groups. Synchronic regional variations must not be
ruled out either.

PK: None of these factors can be ruled out, but a detailed study of
the dating theory is also necessary.

Cynthia Edenburg

The Open University of Israel Tel. 972-3-6460500 fax.
972-3-460767
Dept. of History, Philosophy and Jewish Studies
POB 39328 Rehov Klausner 16
Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv 61392 ISRAEL






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page